(4) Compare Matthew’s parable of the wedding feast (Matthew 22:1-10) with Luke’s version of this same story (Luke 14:16-24). What differences do you notice between the two accounts, and how do these stories function in terms of Ralph’s categories of parable and/or allegory?
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-US
JA
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
Matthew’s tale of the Wedding Feast involves a king who tries to throw a party and invite guests to join in his son’s wedding. He sends servants to bring in guests, but the guests refuse. He tries again and this time tells the servants to tell the guests that he has cattle ready for the feast. However, this time instead of refusing the guests become violent and beat the servants, even killing them. The king becomes mad, and sends his troops to kill the murderers and burn their city. This time he tells his servants to bring anyone, good or bad to the feast, and many do come.
Luke’s story differs. Instead of a wedding feast it is described as a great dinner. The king in Luke’s story only has one servant, and this servant is not killed or mistreated. When the servant asks the guests to come they make excuses as to why they cannot go. When the servant tells the king, he then tells the servant to bring in the poor, sick, lame and crippled. The servant tells him that there is room left, so the king orders the servant to bring all and any who is near. As seen in Luke’s version, the story is less violent, and specifically mentions the welcoming of the poor, the lame, and the like.
I believe these stories follow the form of the parables Ralph discusses in her book. Both stories answer these questions: Who is Jesus addressing? When Jesus relates the stories he speaking to his disciples to make a point. Topic? The topic, on one level, is the feast, but really it’s about entering into eternal life. Comparison? His dispels, and all people of the earth are being compared to the guests who refused the invitation, and those that gained entry into the feast(heaven) or the ones the King (God) sent after. Lesson? The Kingdom of Heaven is there for those who do not turn away from the invitation.
iogbogu 
Both stories are similar in that they share the same lesson and follow the a similar plot. However, Luke’s gospel was more directed towards the Gentiles, who faced discrimination and oppression, so his version of the story is more appealing to them.
The fact that you can draw multiple comparisons between groups in the story and groups in the audience (e.g. the king as God, Jesus as the king’s son, those originally invited but found unworthy as God’s chosen people, the Israelites) suggests that Matthew’s version of the parable may not be functioning as a true parable anymore–but rather as an allegory. In contrast, Luke’s version makes one central comparison: The audience of this parable is compared to those in the story who were invited to the feast first but declined to attend, and you know the social context from the surrounding narrative. In other words, Luke’s version still works as a true parable. As you conclude, however, there is some similarity in the underlying message: in both versions people invited later are found more worthy of attending the feast than those to whom the invitation was extended first. Everyone is welcome to the great banquet table of the kingdom of heaven, but each individual has to accept the invitation and not make excuses to stay away.